Philosophers of punishment spent much of the 20th century refining and adapting well-established theories of punishment in hopes of finding a way to combine the utilitarian goals of punishment with the ethical demands of justice. Victor Tadros’ latest book The Ends of Harm addresses that same challenge, but answers it with an entirely new rationale for punishment based on the duties criminals acquire by committing their crimes. Eric Blumenson’s critique presents four arguments against Tadros’ “Duty View” of punishment, targeting (1) its methodology, (2) certain steps in Tadros’ argument, (3) the disproportionate punishments it demands, and (4) Tadros’ dismissal of the retributivist alternative. Victor Tadros then responds to these arguments in an essay following Blumenson’s critique.